- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:22:50 +0100
- To: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- CC: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Paul Vincent wrote: > > Christian's comment is simply (?) that RIF needs to play well alongside > externally-defined fact definitions (for example external Java object > models used to define production rules in BREs). Thanx for translating from the csma-ese, Paul :-) > Maybe the qu is whether it is compulsory that all relevant facts and > class relationships need to be represented in RIF for RIF rules to be > defined against them? It is compulsory that they need be representable; so, yes, they could be represented. But it is not compulsory that they be represented, as far as I understand. That is, by the way, what I understand Gary says in his reply to you [1], and this is, anyway, what I have been trying to say all along. > Or have I missed the point (again)? :) I do not think so. Cheers, Christian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0127.html
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 15:31:27 UTC